Parallel universes

[triedit]

Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".

The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.

In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.

A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.

It is a bizarre idea which has been dismissed as fanciful by many experts. But the new research from Oxford shows that it offers a mathematical answer to quantum conundrums that cannot be dismissed lightly - and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.

Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Dr Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.

Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.

According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.

The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0

 

[eh1eh]

Breath of fresh air. I hope there are more educated comments. The possibilities are endless.:-|

 

[Unforgiven]

This place for example.

 

[cortex]

I'm particularly fond of the manner in which the existence of parallel universes can explain at least 2 mysteries of physics.

1) what caused the the big bang?

2) why do 3 of the 4 basic forces in nature have roughly the same magnitude ie the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force (still similar in strength to the strong force) and electromagnetism ---while the fourth basic force ie gravity is soooooooooo much weaker than all the rest?

The parrallel universe scenario provides an explaination--along with some very complex math--which I cant get in to. Prior to the big bang--our universe was the size of this period . All the forces were in balance--the force of gravity in this primary universe being astronimically more powerfull than it is now. Then our universe, for some reason collided with a parrallel universe causing" a rift" to form between them---such that most of the gravity--"leaked "out of ours into the parrallel one. At this moment the repulsive forces are unbalanced due to the sudden attenuation of the attractive force of gravity and ..BANG!!--this dot expands to create the universe as we see it evolving today.

pretty cool eh?

the new CERN particle accelerator in the land of the swiss will very shortly test for the existence of the mediator of the gravitational force--the gravitron-- and whether these particles are " leaking " out of our universe---or dimension into another.

You cant make this stuff up.

 

[triedit]

Fascinating! I study this as an extreme novice with regard to how it may explain paranormal experiences. I can't even comprehend how learning to use this information will change our way of life in so many ways.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Count on the mass media to never get this stuff right. Parallel universes do not explain the Big Bang, there's no evidence that they exist, it is not true that three of the four fundamental forces are of the same order of magnitude, CERN's particle accelerator near Geneva is not looking for gravitrons, and there's no connection between physics and the paranormal because all supposedly paranormal events are actually errors in human perception and understanding.

Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum theory is a pure metaphysical speculation, the equations neither require nor suggest it, nor is there any hint that the observer plays any special role in the collapse of the wave function. David Deutsch is a string theorist. The development of string theory has occupied some of the best minds in physics for a generation, and while it's led to some interesting mathematics, it has never produced any testable prediction that isn't equally well accounted for by what's called The Standard Model. One thing that emerges from the equations of string theory is the notion that there isn't one universe, but many, because the equations admit of about 10^500 solutions. That's a very big number, larger than the number of protons in the known universe, but it's still too small to account for the world splitting at every quantum event.

The relative strengths of the four fundamental forces in today's universe, if you take the gravitational force as having a strength of 1 unit, are as follows:

Gravitational force: 1
Nuclear weak force: 10^33
Electromagnetic force: 10^36
Nuclear strong force: 10^38

The electromagnetic force is 1000 times stronger than the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force is 100 times stronger than that. Theory has unified them under conditions of very high energy such as existed in the early universe, but they separated out, a process known as symmetry breaking, as the place cooled. Gravity remains a bit of a mystery, but it appears that at what's called the Planck scale, 10^-33 centimetres, it too might join the crowd, but that scale is so tiny, far below the size of the proton, we have no way to probe it. Not even the CERN particle accelerator can get anywhere close to it.

That machine, called the Large Hadron Collider, replacing an older machine that used the same facilities, is still under construction, and is expected to come on line sometime later this year, according to the latest reports I've seen. What they're looking for is a large, new, unstable particle called the Higgs boson, which theory indicates is the cause of other particles having mass. If it exists, that machine should be able to find it. If it doesn't, some physicists are going to be a little surprised and embarrassed, and there'll be a lot of heavy rethinking going on after that.

Read this.

 

[triedit]

there's no connection between physics and the paranormal because all supposedly paranormal events are actually errors in human perception and understanding.

You have a qualified source for this information?

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You have a qualified source for this information?

Yes. 150 years of serious scholarly research into the paranormal that has produced exactly nothing, not even a coherent, consistent definition of what they think they're looking for. Every properly controlled test of paranormal powers, by which I mean tests set up so that things like cheating, fraud, error, and coincidence are eliminated, fails. No exceptions. There's nothing there.

 

[cortex]

Dexter's post is certainly detailed but does appear to conflict with my sources.

1) The elegant Universe- Brian Greene
2) The fabric of the cosmos- Brian Greene

There was also a NOVA series hosted by Dr Greene which presented the qualitative aspects of superstring theory,
and membrane theory etc and how these relate to multiple dimensions and possible parrelel universes. This is the realm of theoretical physics-although to my knowlegde parrallel universes and multiple dimensions have not yet been experimentally verified the math predicts their existence in much the same way that Einstein's, theory of relativity predicted various counterintuitive phenomena such as--the bending of light by gravitational fields and the slowing of time with increasing velocity before they were experimentally verified. One the most interesting goofs made by the great Einstein himself was that despite the fact that his general theory of relativity predicted that the unverse was expanding ( before it was actually observed a decade later) he REFUSED to accept this because it was sooo counterintuitive to his ( and everyone elses) preconception at the time that the universe was a static eternal entity---so he greated a fudge factor--the cosmological constant to modify the predictions. Had he not done this---had he for example stated that according to the math---that the universe must be expanding---he at the time would have stood alone in the world with this knowledge, most surely been mocked by all his colleages, only to have been proven right not too long afterwards when the the red shift was obseved in distant galaxies indicating that they were moving away from us.

Another example is quantum mechanics which predicts the most counterintuitive phenomema imaginable including for example that a entity such an electron can have both wave and particle properties and that quantumly linked particles can " instanty" comminicate with each other--ie faster than light speed communication. All of these and more having been now experimentally verified--the latter by irish physicist BELL working--i believe at MIT.

Its important to remember that the POSSIBILITY of parrellel unverses and multiple dimensions is not something that new age dodos have pulled out of a hat to mystify us --these are real concrete possibilities that have been put forward by the most advanced theoretical physicists on the planet not because they want to but because the MATH predicts it in much the same way that Einsteins theorys and quantum mechanics predicted the most bizarre phenomena that today are accepted and regarded as common place.

The race to find the gravitron is very real. The gravitron as the proposed particle/wave entity that mediates the
force of gravity is predicted to be the only form of energy that can penetrate into theoretical mulitple dimensions. Superstringtheory predicts that photons ie light, and the 2 other basic forces cannot---so the discovery of the gravitron which is predicted to be able to move into multiple dimensions( because the superstrings that make it up are looped and not open-if you really must know) and its utilization in futher experiments as a-- probe--MAY blow this field wide open.

Having said all this it is true that these posssible properties of matter/energy DO NOT apply to our LEVEL of reality--ie it is doubtfull that any of this is related to paranormal phenomena

As far as getting a feel for the vastly different magnitude of the 4 basic forces try this thought experiment.

1) imagine a nuclear explosion---the blast---thats the nuclear force
2) imagine the light from it-the electromagnetic force
3) imagine the gravitation wave that pushes you away from it( remember it the airblast the pushes not gravity)---so small it is virtually nonexistent

gravity is weak

another example.
take a ballon and rub it let it stick to you hand. Lift it up. Puny you and a few electrostatically charged particles
have with ease overcome the gravitational force of an entire planet.

gravity is weak

that is a mystery

In a way one should hope that these likely but as yet unproven theories of multiple dimensions and paralell universes will be DEFEATED--you know why?

because whatever new knowledge arises from these experiments will most likely point to theories that are even more bizzarre than these.

We should by now have learned to follow the math. The shift from classical physics to moderm physics in my view is the refinement of mathamatical techniques-such as the noneuclidian geometry that Einstein found so helpfull in developing his model of reality--such that they vastly outpace our ability to test their counterintuitive predictions.

The math points to TEN spatial dimensions and ONE temporal dimension .
This is highly probable---but as yet unverified

The math points to multiple universes as well---this is admittedly not as strong as the above but---is still possible.---and MAY be verified

 

[darkbeaver]

I have several gravitrons for sale at very reasonable prices. Less containment.

Beaver International Metafizzics
Gold only no US bucks.

 

[triedit]

Yes. 150 years of serious scholarly research into the paranormal that has produced exactly nothing, not even a coherent, consistent definition of what they think they're looking for. Every properly controlled test of paranormal powers, by which I mean tests set up so that things like cheating, fraud, error, and coincidence are eliminated, fails. No exceptions. There's nothing there.

Wow are you ever wrong. There has been plenty of "successful" experimentation with psychics (and non psychics) to prove "power". The problem is consistency.

Anyway, before we drag this further off topic, Im cool with whatever you believe.

 

[Curiosity]

Ah Dexter!!!

Didja have to be so eloquent - I can't pass up any explanations you give as they are so organized and well thought out -

But.... I want there to be a parallel universe.......or something else....

There's no meaning - no goal - what's the point of being unimportant - a molecule in space.....

I need more coffee.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Dexter's post is certainly detailed but does appear to conflict with my sources.

1) The elegant Universe- Brian Greene
2) The fabric of the cosmos- Brian Greene

I've read both those books, and there's nothing in them that conflicts with anything I said. You might also be interested in David Deutsch's The Fabric of Reality. Various metaphysical speculations emerge as possibilities from the equations, but there is as yet no good evidence that string theory as physics is anything more than a lot of fancy calculating tricks that happen to give the same answers as the standard model. Check out The Trouble with Physics by Lee Smolin.

Wow are you ever wrong. There has been plenty of "successful" experimentation with psychics (and non psychics) to prove "power".

No I'm not, and no there hasn't. Certainly you can find plenty of seemingly authoritative reports to the contrary, in popular magazines like Nexus and in supposed scholarly journals, but those are things put together by true believers who don't understand proper testing protocols and experimental design. Dean Radin is one of the worst offenders. When tests are done by people who understand those things, they fail. Always. You're right that consistency is a problem, in fact it's *the* problem. A result that can't be replicated doesn't mean anything beyond strongly suggesting the original positive result was an error, a fraud, a coincidence, a misinterpretation, something like that. Read this.

 

[triedit]

Im well familiar with CISCOP err....CSI...and the 17 year old paper you cited. And Im not suggesting that these "paranormal events" are caused by anything otherworldly. But something is happening, whether "science" proves its source or not, and therefore further study is warranted. You can't honestly tell me there is a normal and logical reason for a bowl to suddenly fly across a room with enough force to break it against a wall. We can't yet show WHY or HOW it happens, but it is an event that occurs with enough regularity so as not to be ignored. And it happens to about the same percentage of mentally deficient and otherwise normal individuals.

There's one big problem with CSI....they have taken the word Skeptic and have mean non-believer. A true skeptic sits on the fence.

 

[Curiosity]

But but regarding your link Dexter - doesn't pure critical thought of necessity have no bias to address the query? The last writer you linked was biased and sought to disprove anything of a paranormal occurrence.

 

[Curiosity]

Im well familiar with CISCOP err....CSI...and the 17 year old paper you cited. And Im not suggesting that these "paranormal events" are caused by anything otherworldly. But something is happening, whether "science" proves its source or not, and therefore further study is warranted. You can't honestly tell me there is a normal and logical reason for a bowl to suddenly fly across a room with enough force to break it against a wall. We can't yet show WHY or HOW it happens, but it is an event that occurs with enough regularity so as not to be ignored. And it happens to about the same percentage of mentally deficient and otherwise normal individuals.

There's one big problem with CSI....they have taken the word Skeptic and have mean non-believer. A true skeptic sits on the fence.

Triedit

I had the same thought as you - when you were posting your quoted message. Agree!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There's one big problem with CSI....they have taken the word Skeptic and have mean non-believer. A true skeptic sits on the fence.

No, that's not right. A true skeptic believes things when the evidence justifies such belief, and in its absence withholds belief. That's what James Lett's rules for critical thinking are about, the only bias he has is one in favour of evidence and reason, how to avoid being fooled. The evidence for any paranormal effects is insufficient to justify belief. Anecdotes and hearsay about bowls flying across the room and smashing against the wall don't cut it, and every case of such alleged poltergeist phenomena that's been properly investigated has proven to have a perfectly mundane explanation. Read this.

 

[Curiosity]

Dexter

The oddity of paranormal is: there is no reason or evidence as requested by debunkers.

If it was a simple occurrence affecting the senses of everyone, it would not be paranormal.

 

[triedit]

Of course there is a "naturalistic" explaination. But that doesnt preclude it from being paranormal.

And the bowl incident has happened more than once in my house, before my own eyes, and with absolutely no plausible reason. The second time it happened, a small perfume bottle, rather heavy for it's size, travelled 8 feet across the room and smashed, breaking the leaded glass inside the silver scrollwork...and it struck two feet ABOVE the table it originally rested on.

I don't have an explaination for that. That makes it paranormal until proven normal. It will take quite a bit to show normalcy in that case.

 

[jimmoyer]

But.... I want there to be a parallel universe.......or something else....

There's no meaning - no goal - what's the point of being unimportant - a molecule in space.....

I need more coffee.

------------------------------------------------------------Curiosity---------------------------------

Good point, Curiosity !!
Here's another cup.

What's the point of being unimportant ?

That's a question implied over the years for which religion and philosophy have tried to answer.

We humanize everything, our pets, the inhuman-ness of the universe, the muteness of various machinery.

We are essentially ego-centric and find it disconcerting that it's not about us.

As an aside, I think the Old Testament's description of a vengeful non-human God and its description of the horror in nature was the closest to understanding this unimportant-ness of humans. It's the revulsion to the horror in nature we see in Darwin or daily on the Discovery Channel.

The horror, as Kurtz repeated thrice in Heart of Darkness, immortalized by Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now, is a synonym for describing something non-human, inhuman. Horror.


There was small print on the back of a car bumper begging for an accident from guys like me who want to read it, and upon coming closer, the bumper sticker asked, "It's all about you, isn't it ?"

---------------

And Dexter Sinister, the great debunker, able in his ability to press us all to the proof test
forces you to think more. But his attitude of foreclosing possibilities might indicate close-mindedness or it might indicate a tougher more evolved mindset requiring at all cost real accuracy, the truth, as those of us amateur voyeurs view this discussion.